The rise of “journalistic truth”
Previously on Meet Press, we talked briefly about the philosophical concept of truth and the complex debate that the term brings with it. (I apologize here for every philosopher reading that post and wondering aloud why I didn’t donate more space to the subject. Sorry. That is all.) I also stated that journalists weren’t wasting their time seeking out the truth, but that they should be clearer about what they mean when they say they are presenting the truth.
What the news media presents each day is the best version of the truth that is available on that day. Much like how truth claims can change over time, so too can the truth of a story change as new facts emerge that validate, contradict or build on earlier facts. This evolving nature of truth is known as “journalistic truth.” Journalistic truth is similar to the concept of scientific truth. Facts are gathered and then information is checked, verified or refuted and then presented. What we believe or know today can change tomorrow — even Marshall McLuhan believed in this idea of evolving knowledge. Each day, the news media presents slices of the truth (St. John, 2009) that add up to as accurate a picture of reality as can be attained at that point in time.
The idea of journalistic truth arose after the First World War (St. John, 2009). St. John wrote that journalists in the post-war era wanted to renew their claims of authenticity following a time when propagandists pushed nations to war: “The war had shown journalists that unchecked experts could lead a democratic society into an ill-advised effort” (p. 355). The way to force experts to prove their theories was to become more like scientists. Journalist and intellectual Walter Lippmann in his book Public Opinion argued that journalists should report on stories and events with a scientific approach — through first-hand observations, collection of evidence and then testing facts to validate findings. Quickly, Lippmann’s ideas permeated newsrooms and the modern era of journalistic truth-seeking began.
The idea of journalistic truth didn’t deny that truth was subject to the interpretations of human beings. As I mentioned in my previous post, truth is subject to interpretation through each individual’s paradigm. An individual’s personal history, beliefs, values, socioeconomic status, geographical location and demography help frame their interpretations of the world. In this respect, it is impossible for subjective human beings to create an objective account of reality (Fuller, 2001). Human beings, despite being subjective, could use objective methods to test facts (Fuller, 2001; Project for Excellence in Journalism, nd) and that’s what journalistic truth entails: “The method is objective, not the journalist” (Project for Excellence in Journalism, nd).
Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can–and must–pursue it in a practical sense. This “journalistic truth” is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation. Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built–context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum.
– Principles of Journalism, Project for Excellence in Journalism
Journalistic truth, though, is not without its problems.
The first issue is that because the news media has a tendency to dwell in a one-day world (Innis, in Babe, 2005), stories can be dropped before they have time to evolve. Facts that could have emerged with more reporting time can be lost and journalistic truth ends with a smaller slice of reality than the consumer — or the truth — deserves.
The second issue has to do with providing context for the audience. To provide context, journalists rely on experts. This is where journalists can fall subject to propaganda and where we will head next time on Meet Press.
Out of curiosity, given that journalistic truths have a short lifespan, how are journalists held accountable for the information they present? Are they?
The accountability measure is by reporting the best version of the truth on that day while referring to previous accounts in the same report. When journalists are transparent about what they know today and relate that back to what they knew yesterday, the news media makes it a little easier for the news consumer to track the information over time, which is key to understanding any story, and come to a final judgment on the facts of the story. Transparency leads to accountability — or, in other words, report, repeat, report, repeat.